ÿWPC} ’¯–Å º—”¯á•pÙ„À<­žÒ²èÀ§ÐvnÚ!±p¡D|‹ÇÎ\}™œ)· ³†"*”èQô¶#Zó7§DÜ•¬ŸzÈ/˜¹ëïHùyÌg0|k4kF45O8žÃ&)ça;Ä8éf›¿Ë×ݸB_í`>N >Æå,EÉÝL†Xaõò$‰‰t=b¿TWaF{Šµ*ê%W· C߇ËaHM‚Å‘Úô5dQ›Vä7°sù•ª¼À\‚Ϲ©ÞŒ6£ùze°˜Å%ÝmÅŒqž±D…v8ŽWX V+ˆ§¾ƒ-ÕؽÌüñ93Üë û…˜„Zx©ÆÒ¡ª×t6\h”òqå­þÇg~ Ùõ“$ o×ÿìé‘aĸ7ƒ–a 9;ñÄá„í—ÛdeµªTcr÷pæ¢Â”ëîZ93™V•¤cøây¬Fâa² d}—¾‰¼˜søí —¢yÎ&±bLZ£Ö(¿)ÆTîÎjÏTwé(͇Hží¤„¦Ø¶H¦<–ÎhÁã1°G Ιe5{Ó„ntÌ'U aÑ©ûÄhƒÓÌÈDØŸvs}o†Fž #$d¬Ã,TÖÑíîÊå‹.þp¢ýÂ)l±»eËNž.Œî`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýb w 4# 7 0ÒF 0D \ m^ ”u  U â^d@U :¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ BÞÞûûûûûûûNV^ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ AQgƸ 0D~ 0D 0D D3J˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-{Z='3|x(‚(2öŠ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XûÝXXXÔÔ€ôðëõXXûÝÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ŠÝ ƒ .$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X“ÞXXXÔÔ€ôŸíòXX“ÞÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€this€Court€held€that€when€specific€instances€of€conduct€are€admissible€to€corroborateÐ `  Ðthe€defendantððs€assertion€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor,€the€evidence€is€only€admissible€as€part€of€theÐ  ¾ Ðdefendantððs€cross„examination€of€the€victim.€€885€S.W.2d€at€363;€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,Ð Ü | Ð780„781€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(holding€that€corroborative€proof€that€the€victim€was€the€initial€aggressor€isÐ š : Ðoutside€the€scope€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(2)€and€405;€thus,€third€persons€may€testify€as€to€specific€instancesÐ X ø Ðof€violent€conduct€committed€by€the€victim€on€direct€examination). öÝ ƒ .$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X“ÞXXXÔÔ€ôŸíòXX“ÞÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Trial€counsel€attempted€on€numerous€occasions€to€elicit€testimony€from€various€witnesses€regardingÐ `  Ðthe€victimððs€propensity€for€violence€and€specific€acts€of€violence€committed€by€the€victim.€€On€most€occasions,Ð  ¾ Ðhowever,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€stateððs€objection€to€this€testimony. KÝ ƒ .$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X“ÞXXXÔÔ€ôŸíòXX“ÞÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€the€state€objected€to€such€testimony€on€several€occasions,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€juryÐ `  Ðto€disregard€the€testimony€only€once. ØÝ ƒ .$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X“ÞXXXÔÔ€ôŸíòXX“ÞÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Moreover,€Duzane€was€not€questioned€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€as€to€his€reasoning€for€failingÐ `  Ðto€present€this€issue€on€appeal.€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€counselððs€decision€notÐ  ¾ Ðto€appeal€this€issue€was€deficient€performance.€€ð ðGenerally,€the€determination€of€which€issues€to€present€onÐ Ü | Ðappeal€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€the€professional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€of€appellateÐ š : Ðcounsel.ðð€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€1995).€€Since€it€is€possible€that€counsel€believedÐ X ø Ðsuch€an€issue€would€not€have€been€fruitful€on€appeal,€the€petitioner€has€not€established€that€counselððsÐ  ¶ Ðperformance€was€deficient€in€this€regard. ZÝ ƒ .$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X“ÞXXXÔÔ€ôŸíòXX“ÞÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€petitioner€claims€that€the€prosecutorððs€cross„examination€regarding€his€prior€arrests€destroyedÐ `  Ðthe€petitionerððs€credibility€in€the€eyes€of€the€jury.€€During€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€could€not€recallÐ  ¾ Ðwhether€he€had€been€previously€arrested.€€Any€loss€of€credibility€would€clearly€be€the€result€of€the€petitionerððsÐ Ü | Ðlack€of€recollection€in€this€regard.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d LÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XûÝXXXÔÔ€S¼ XXûÝÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XûÝX S¼ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€9,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ôƒ)' Z[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑÜ°ÑÔ€Š¢¶‹XXÔÔ€Š‹‹Š¢¶ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€V@XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ‡XûÝX‹ŠÔÔ_Ôßv€Y)_@0,j:úÿ`  `€€@ÿEa ` 8ttxPR` ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓJAMES€PHILLIP€HUNTER,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9805„CR„00216Ð Ôt Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð À` Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð ¦F  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ ~  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ j  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€SETH€NORMANó óÐ Vö  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Bâ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ .Î  Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Post„Conviction)Ð º Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð ž> ÐÌTHOMAS€F.€BLOOMà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ j  Ð500€Church€Streetà  àà h àà À àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Pð Ð5th€FloorÌNashville,€TN€€37219à h àà À àà  àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÐ !¼ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKYMBERLY€HAASÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€Square,€Ste.€500Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  .2Î(- ÐÓ  Óò òòòOPINIONóóó óÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àThe€petitioner,€James€Phillip€Hunter,€appeals€the€order€of€the€Davidson€CountyÐ Þ ~ ÐCriminal€Court€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€is€presentlyÐ ªJ Ðserving€a€life€sentence€as€a€result€of€his€conviction€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder€inÐ v  Ð1993.€€In€1997,€the€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€ineffectiveÐ Bâ  Ðassistance€of€trial€counsel.€€The€trial€court€found€no€merit€to€any€of€the€petitionerððs€claimsÐ ®  Ðand€accordingly€denied€the€petition.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€claims€that€he€receivedÐ Úz  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€theÐ ¦F Ðrecord€before€this€Court,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ð r ÐÌà@  .Dàò òI.ó óˆÐ  ª ÐÌà@ÔÔ+Dàò òA.€€Trialó óˆÐ ¢!B Ðà ` àIn€1993,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€after€a€jury€trial€for€the€premeditated€murderÐ n# Ðof€Dewey€Slanton.€€His€conviction€was€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€JamesÐ :%Ú ÐPhillip€Hunteróó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9404„CR„00154,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð '¦! Ðfiled€January€11,€1996,€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€June€3,€1996).€€We€reciteÐ Ò(r# Ðthe€relevant€facts€as€set€out€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal:Ð ž*>!% ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àOn€January€8,€1993,€Teresa€Smoot€was€celebrating€the€birthday€ofÐ j, #' Ðher€husband,€Michael€Smoot,€at€their€residence.€€Ms.€Smootððs€brother,Ð P-ð#( ÐRonald€Fann,€and€the€victim,€Dewey€Slanton,€were€present.€€Michael€SmootÐ 6.Ö$) Ðand€the€victim€were€drinking€beer.€€The€four€watched€television€for€a€timeÐ /¼%* Ðbefore€deciding€to€go€to€the€Odyssey€Club,€where€Ms.€Smoot€worked€as€aÐ 0¢&+ Ðdancer.€€On€their€way,€they€stopped€at€a€liquor€store,€where€Ms.€SmootððsÐ è0ˆ', Ðhusband€and€brother€bought€a€ð ðlittle€bottle€of€something.ðð€€The€victim€hadÐ Î1n(- Ðalso€gone€inside€the€store€but€did€not€purchase€anything.€€The€groupÐ ´2T). Ðcontinued€their€celebration€at€the€club€for€a€time,€then€took€the€victim€homeÐ š3:*/ Ðbecause€he€had€to€work€the€next€day.Ѐ4 +0` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€other€three€decided€to€visit€another€club,€the€Brass€Stables,€butÐ L6ì,2 Ðchanged€their€minds€on€the€way€and€drove€towards€the€Smoot€home.€€AsÐ 27Ò-3 Ðthey€entered€the€alley€leading€to€their€driveway,€Ms.€Smoot€saw€the€victim,Ð 8¸.4 Ðwho€lived€in€the€neighboring€apartments,€looking€over€his€shoulder€andÐ þ8ž/5 Ðmotioning€for€her€to€stop.€€Ms.€Smoot€yelled,€ð ðWait€a€minute,ðð€and€was€pullingÐ `  Ðinto€her€driveway€to€park€the€car€when€she€heard€a€gunshot.€€She€then€sawÐ F æ Ðthe€defendant,€who€appeared€to€have€something€like€the€butt€of€a€gun€on€hisÐ , Ì Ðð ðback€side,ðð€standing€toward€the€front€of€her€house.€€As€she€backed€the€carÐ  ² Ðinto€the€alley,€she€saw€the€victim€clutch€his€stomach€and€chest€and€fall€to€theÐ ø ˜ Ðground.€€Ms.€Smoot€ran€to€the€victim,€placed€a€pillow€under€his€head€andÐ Þ ~ Ðcovered€him€with€her€coat€and€a€blanket.€€Michael€Smoot€called€911;€Ms.Ð Äd ÐSmoot€joined€in€the€conversation,€telling€the€dispatcher€that€the€defendantÐ ªJ Ðhad€shot€the€victim.€€The€defendant,€who€lived€in€the€same€apartmentÐ 0 Ðcomplex€as€the€victim,€went€to€his€sisterððs€house€right€after€the€shooting;€heÐ v  Ðreturned€to€his€apartment€a€few€minutes€later.Ð\ü ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àMs.€Smoot,€who€conceded€that€the€victim€was€a€close€friend,€testifiedÐ (È  Ðthat€he€was€not€drunk.€€She€stated€that€the€victim€had€previously€told€her€thatÐ ®  Ðhe€ð ðhad€wordsðð€with€the€defendant€over€Debra€Ryman,€the€victimððsÐ ô”  Ðex-girlfriend€and€a€niece€to€the€defendant.ÐÚz ` (#` (# ÐÌ.€.€.€.Ð ¦F ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àSusan€Franks,€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville-Davidson€County€PoliceÐ r ÐDepartment,€was€the€first€officer€to€arrive€at€the€scene€of€the€shooting.€€TheÐ Xø Ðvictim,€wrapped€in€a€blanket,€appeared€to€be€unconscious.€€Officer€FranksÐ >Þ Ðlearned€that€Smoot€and€Fann€suspected€the€defendant€as€the€assailant.€Ð $Ä ÐWhen€the€ambulance€arrived,€she€looked€for€evidence€in€the€nearbyÐ  ª Ðapartment€complex.€€A€door€to€one€of€the€apartments,€that€belonging€to€theÐ ð Ðvictim,€was€open.€€The€apartment€was€in€disarray€and€there€were€twoÐ Öv Ðgunshot€holes€in€the€living€room€wall.€€As€Officer€Franks€knocked€on€the€doorÐ ¼ \ Ðto€the€adjacent€apartment,€she€saw€that€the€door€to€a€third€apartment€wasÐ ¢!B Ðopen,€investigated,€and€found€the€defendant€sitting€calmly€inside.€€TheÐ ˆ"( Ðdefendant€told€Officer€Franks€that€he€had€been€asleep€when€the€victimÐ n# Ðkicked€in€the€door€to€his€apartment€and€hit€him€in€the€jaw.€€He€stated€that€heÐ T$ô Ðthen€took€a€shotgun€from€underneath€his€bed€and€shot€the€victim.€€OfficerÐ :%Ú ÐFranks€found€no€cuts,€bruises,€or€abrasions€on€the€defendant€andÐ  &À  Ðdetermined€that€the€door€had€been€kicked€from€the€inside€out,€rather€than€theÐ '¦! Ðoutside€in.Ðì'Œ"` (#` (# ÐÌ.€.€.€.Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àHomicide€Detective€Mike€Roland€took€a€statement€from€the€defendant.€Ð „+$"& ÐThe€defendant,€who€described€himself€as€nervous€and€upset,€contended€thatÐ j, #' Ðafter€he€had€been€attacked€by€the€victim,€he€got€his€gun€and€went€to€theÐ P-ð#( Ðdoorway€of€his€apartment.€€While€there,€he€fired€two€or€three€times€at€theÐ 6.Ö$) Ðvictim€who,€by€then,€had€fled€some€distance€away€but€was€coming€backÐ /¼%* Ðtoward€him.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€when€he€saw€the€victim€fall,€he€putÐ 0¢&+ Ðhis€gun€away€and€went€to€his€sisterððs€house€to€call€authorities.€€TheÐ è0ˆ', Ðdefendant€maintained€that€he€had€no€idea€why€the€victim€initiated€the€attack.€Ð Î1n(- ÐHe€asserted€that€he€generally€tried€to€stay€away€from€the€victim€because,€inÐ ´2T). Ðpart,€the€victim€drank€heavily€and€became€violent€when€he€did€so.К3:*/` (#` (# ÐÌ.€.€.€.Ð f5,1 ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àDr.€Mona€Harlan,€a€forensic€pathologist€with€the€Davidson€CountyÐ 27Ò-3 ÐMedical€Examinerððs€Office,€conducted€the€autopsy.€€She€stated€that€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðvictim€suffered€multiple€pellet€wounds€which€extended€from€slightly€above€hisÐ þ8ž/5 Ðknees€to€the€top€of€his€head.€€There€was€no€stippling€of€the€skin€near€theÐ `  Ðwound.€€That€led€Dr.€Harlan€to€conclude€that€the€victim€had€not€sustained€theÐ F æ Ðgunshot€wound€from€close€range.€€She€estimated€that€at€least€fifteen€feetÐ , Ì Ðwould€have€separated€the€victim€and€the€defendant€when€the€victim€wasÐ  ² Ðshot.€€The€victim€had€abrasions€on€his€hand,€knee,€and€forehead,€which€Dr.Ð ø ˜ ÐHarlan€believed€could€have€been€the€product€of€a€physical€altercation,€theÐ Þ ~ Ðvictimððs€fall€to€the€ground,€or€from€pellets€which€had€not€penetrated€the€skin.€Ð Äd ÐDr.€Harlan€also€found€that€the€victim's€blood€alcohol€level€was€.14.ЪJ` (#` (# ÐÌ.€.€.€.Ð v  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€a€sheet€metal€worker,€testified€that€he€had€lived€in€hisÐ Bâ  Ðapartment€at€128€Rains€Road€for€approximately€six€months€when€theÐ (È  Ðshooting€occurred.€€He€stated€the€victim€lived€in€a€nearby€apartment€with€hisÐ ®  Ðniece€and€that€they€would€occasionally€invite€him€to€eat€dinner€there.€€TheÐ ô”  Ðdefendant€claimed€that€he€and€the€victim€had€never€had€problems€until€theÐ Úz  Ðday€of€the€shooting.ÐÀ`` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àHe€testified€that€the€victim€had€several€guests€at€his€apartmentÐ Œ, Ðdrinking€that€day.€€One€of€the€guests€had€made€a€ð ðsmartðð€remark€to€theÐ r Ðdefendant,€but€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€ignored€the€comment.€Ð Xø ÐWhen€he€returned€to€his€apartment,€he€turned€on€the€television€and€fellÐ >Þ Ðasleep€on€the€couch.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€the€next€thing€heÐ $Ä Ðremembered€was€a€loud€banging€at€his€door.€€When€he€answered,€the€victim,Ð  ª Ðwho€smelled€strongly€of€alcohol,€struck€him€in€the€side€of€the€face.€€TheÐ ð Ðdefendant€contended€that€the€victim,€who€had€previously€bragged€about€hisÐ Öv Ðfighting€prowess,€hit€him€about€fifteen€times.€€He€testified€that€he€retrieved€hisÐ ¼ \ Ðshotgun€from€underneath€his€bed€only€after€he€was€hit€in€the€back€of€theÐ ¢!B Ðhead;€when€he€did€so,€the€victim€stood€in€the€bedroom€doorway€and€cursedÐ ˆ"( Ðat€him.€€He€maintained€that€the€victim€was€only€about€fifteen€or€twenty€feetÐ n# Ðoutside€the€apartment€by€the€time€the€shotgun€had€been€loaded.€€TheÐ T$ô Ðdefendant€claimed€that€the€shotgun€started€ð ðgoing€offðð€only€after€the€victimÐ :%Ú Ðreached€for€something€in€his€back€pocket.€€He€stated€that€he€had€not€aimedÐ  &À  Ðhis€weapon€before€firing.Ð'¦!` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓòòState€v.€James€Phillip€Hunteróó,€òòsupraóó,€slip€op.€at€3„11.Ð Ò(r# Ðà@"Dàò òB.€€Post„Conviction€Hearingó óˆÐ ž*>!% Ðà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€complained€of€trial€counselððs€failure€toÐ j, #' Ðthoroughly€investigate€his€case€prior€to€trial.€€He€testified€that€although€he€had€only€a€ninthÐ 6.Ö$) Ðgrade€education,€his€attorney€required€him€to€make€all€of€the€decisions€regarding€trialÐ 0¢&+ Ðstrategy.€€€The€petitioner€stated€that€his€attorney€never€reviewed€the€stateððs€case€with€himÐ Î1n(- Ðnor€did€he€discuss€trial€strategy€with€him.€€€He€further€claimed€that€his€attorney€only€visitedÐ š3:*/ Ðthe€crime€scene€once,€which€was€on€the€second€day€of€trial.€€The€petitioner€testified€thatÐ f5,1 Ðcounsel€did€not€independently€contact€defense€witnesses,€and€the€only€time€counsel€spokeÐ 27Ò-3 Ðwith€the€petitionerððs€proposed€witnesses€was€when€the€petitioner€brought€them€to€counselððsÐ þ8ž/5 Ðoffice.€€He€stated€that€trial€counsel€did€not€attempt€to€have€scientific€tests€performed€on€anyÐ `  Ðof€the€stateððs€physical€evidence.Ð , Ì Ðà ` àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€informed€his€attorney€about€his€prior€criminal€record,Ð ø ˜ Ðincluding€his€prior€arrests.€€He€further€stated€that€trial€counsel€was€aware€of€the€victimððsÐ Äd Ðprior€criminal€record€as€well€as€his€propensity€for€violence.€Ð 0 Ðà ` àGeorge€Duzane€represented€the€petitioner€at€trial.€€Duzane€testified€at€the€post„Ð \ü  Ðconviction€hearing€that€he€had€been€practicing€law€since€1979,€and€at€the€time€of€trialÐ (È  Ðapproximately€30%„35%€of€his€practice€consisted€of€criminal€cases.€€He€stated€that€heÐ ô”  Ðspoke€with€the€petitioner€on€many€occasions€concerning€the€stateððs€case€against€him.€Ð À` ÐAlthough€he€did€not€hire€a€private€investigator,€he€spoke€with€the€police€officersÐ Œ, Ðinvestigating€the€case€several€times.€€He€reviewed€all€of€the€discovery€provided€to€him,€filedÐ Xø Ðvarious€pretrial€motions€and€visited€the€crime€scene€at€least€twice.€€Duzane€testified€thatÐ $Ä Ðthe€petitioner€made€the€decision€as€to€which€witnesses€to€call€on€his€behalf,€and€heÐ ð Ðinterviewed€every€witness€that€the€petitioner€suggested.€€However,€he€acknowledged€thatÐ ¼ \ Ðmany€of€the€defense€witnesses€offered€testimony€which€was€contrary€to€their€respectiveÐ ˆ"( Ðstatements€to€law€enforcement€authorities.€Ð T$ô Ðà ` àBecause€the€petitioner€claimed€that€he€killed€the€victim€in€self„defense,€DuzaneÐ  &À  Ðattempted€to€present€evidence€of€the€victimððs€violent€tendencies,€especially€after€he€hadÐ ì'Œ" Ðbeen€drinking.€€However,€the€trial€court€would€not€allow€him€to€present€such€testimony.€Ð ¸)X $ ÐDuzane€admitted€that€he€was€able€to€elicit€some€testimony€concerning€the€victimððs€priorÐ „+$"& Ðconvictions€as€well€as€his€past€violent€behavior.€Ð P-ð#( Ðà ` àIn€a€written€order,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€had€not€presented€sufficientÐ /¼%* Ðevidence€supporting€his€claim€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective.€€The€trial€court€concludedÐ è0ˆ', Ðthat€trial€counsel€did€not€provide€deficient€representation,€and€the€petitioner€had€notÐ ´2T). Ðestablished€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€any€of€the€alleged€deficiencies.€€As€a€result,€the€trialÐ €4 +0 Ðâ âcourt€denied€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ð L6ì,2 Ðà ` àFrom€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€now€bringsÐ `  Ðâ âthis€appeal.Ð , Ì ÐÌà@ðð.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ Äd ÐÌÒ4Òà Œ àThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€manyÐ \ü  Ðrespects.€€First,€he€claims€that€trial€counsel€erroneously€failed€to€question€him€duringÐ (È  Ðhis€direct€testimony€regarding€his€knowledge€of€specific€acts€of€violence€committed€byÐ ô”  Ðthe€victim.€€He€asserts€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððsÐ À` Ðruling€that€prior€bad€acts€committed€by€the€victim€were€inadmissible.€€The€petitioner€alsoÐ Œ, Ðmaintains€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€ð ðexpertðð€testimonyÐ Xø Ðpresented€by€the€state.€€He€further€insists€that€trial€counsel€ineffectively€questioned€himÐ $Ä Ðon€direct€examination€regarding€his€prior€convictions.€€Finally,€the€petitioner€contendsÐ ð Ðthat€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€conduct€an€adequate€investigation€of€theÐ ¼ \ Ðcase€and€for€failing€to€procure€favorable€witnesses€for€the€defense.Ð ˆ"( Ðò òà@œœ%ÚàA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ T$ô Ðà Œ àIn€post-conviction€proceedings,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€theÐ  &À  Ðallegations€raised€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ì'Œ" Ððð€40„30„210(f).€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appealÐ ¸)X $ Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ „+$"& Ð497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€595-96€(Tenn.€1995);Ð P-ð#( ÐòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).Ð /¼%* Ðà@ÿÿÚàò òB.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ è0ˆ', Ðà Œ àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides,€in€part,€ð ð[i]nÐ ´2T). Ðall€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€.€.€.€to€have€the€assistanceÐ €4 +0 Ðof€counsel€for€his€defense.ðð€€Similarly,€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÐ L6ì,2 Ðguarantees€an€accused€ð ðthe€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel€.€.€.ðð€Ð 8¸.4 ÐAdditionally,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-14-102€provides,€ð ð[e]very€person€accused€of€anyÐ `  Ðcrime€or€misdemeanor€whatsoever€is€entitled€to€counsel€in€all€matters€necessary€forÐ , Ì Ðsuch€person's€defense,€as€well€to€facts€as€to€law.ððÐ ø ˜ Ðà Œ àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€articulated€a€two-prong€test€for€courts€toÐ Äd Ðemploy€in€evaluating€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€òòStrickland€v.Ð 0 ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€The€Court€beganÐ \ü  Ðits€analysis€by€noting€that€ð ð[t]he€benchmark€for€judging€any€claim€of€ineffectivenessÐ (È  Ðmust€be€whether€counselððs€conduct€so€undermined€the€proper€functioning€of€theÐ ô”  Ðadversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€having€produced€a€just€result.ðð€Ð À` ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€686,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€When€challenging€the€effectiveÐ Œ, Ðassistance€of€counsel€in€a€post-conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burdenÐ Xø Ðof€establishing€(1)€the€attorneyððs€representation€was€deficient;€and€(2)€the€deficientÐ $Ä Ðperformance€resulted€in€prejudice€so€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.€Ð ð ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558Ð ¼ \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€This€Court€is€not€required€to€consider€the€two€prongs€ofÐ ˆ"( ÐStrickland€in€any€particular€order.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð T$ô ÐApp.€1996).€€ð ðMoreover,€if€the€Appellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€courtÐ  &À  Ðneed€not€consider€the€other.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ì'Œ" Ðà Œ àThe€test€in€Tennessee€in€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effectiveÐ ¸)X $ Ðassistance€at€trial€is€whether€counselððs€performance€was€ð ðwithin€the€range€ofÐ „+$"& Ðcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÐ P-ð#( Ð930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€163.€€In€order€toÐ /¼%* Ðdemonstrate€that€counsel€was€deficient,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððsÐ è0ˆ', Ðrepresentation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ ´2T). Ðprofessional€norms.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947Ð €4 +0 Ðâ âS.W.2d€at€163.Ð L6ì,2 Ðà Œ àUnder€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€petitioner€must€establish€that€ð ðthereÐ `  Ðâ âis€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€theÐ , Ì Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different.€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probabilityÐ ø ˜ Ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104Ð Äd ÐS.Ct.€at€2068.Ð 0 Ðà Œ àIn€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€.€.€.€requires€that€every€effortÐ \ü  Ðbe€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÐ (È  Ðcircumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÐ ô”  Ðcounselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€€TheÐ À` Ðmere€failure€of€a€particular€tactic€or€strategy€does€not€òòper€seóó€establish€unreasonableÐ Œ, Ðrepresentation.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€thisÐ Xø ÐCourt€will€defer€to€counselððs€tactical€and€strategic€choices€only€where€those€choices€areÐ $Ä Ðinformed€ones€predicated€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòId.óó;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2dÐ ð Ð4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ð ¼ \ Ðà@éé#Úàò òC.€€Victimððs€Prior€Bad€Actsó óˆÐ ˆ"( Ðà Œ àThe€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€properlyÐ T$ô Ðquestion€the€petitioner€at€trial€with€regard€to€the€victimððs€prior€acts€of€violence.€€HeÐ  &À  Ðargues€that€counsel€questioned€the€petitioner€generally€about€the€victimððs€violentÐ ì'Œ" Ðtendencies,€but€did€not€follow€up€with€questioning€regarding€the€petitionerððs€knowledgeÐ ¸)X $ Ðof€specific€violent€acts€committed€by€the€victim.€€Furthermore,€he€claims€that€trialÐ „+$"& Ðcounsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€other€defenseÐ P-ð#( Ðwitnesses€could€not€testify€regarding€specific€violent€acts€by€the€victim.Ð /¼%* Ðà Œ àTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(2)€provides:Ð è0ˆ', ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà ä àEvidence€of€a€personððs€character€or€a€trait€of€character€is€notÐ ´2T). Ðadmissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€theÐ š3:*/ Ðcharacter€or€trait€on€a€particular€occasion,€except€.€.€.€[e]vidence€of€aÐ €4 +0 Ðpertinent€character€trait€of€the€victim€of€crime€offered€by€an€accused€or€byÐ f5,1 Ðthe€prosecution€to€rebut€the€same,€or€evidence€of€a€character€trait€ofÐ L6ì,2 Ðpeacefulness€of€the€victim€offered€by€the€prosecution€in€a€homicide€caseÐ 27Ò-3 Ðto€rebut€evidence€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor.Ð8¸.4Œ (#Œ (# ÐÐ þ8ž/5 ÐÓÓA€defendant€may€testify€as€to€his€or€her€knowledge€of€recent€acts€of€violence€committedÐ `  Ðby€the€victim€against€others€to€establish€the€defendantððs€fear€or€apprehension€of€theÐ , Ì Ðvictim€prior€to€or€during€an€assault.€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€648€(Tenn.Ð ø ˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ð Äd ÐFurther,€specific€acts€of€violence€by€the€victim€are€admissible€to€corroborate€aÐ 0 Ðdefendantððs€assertion€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797Ð \ü  ÐS.W.2d€at€649.Ð (È  Ðà Œ àThe€petitioner€should€have€been€allowed€to€testify€as€to€specific€acts€of€violentÐ ô”  Ðconduct€committed€by€the€victim.€€However,€even€if€this€Court€were€to€find€that€trialÐ À` Ðcounselððs€performance€was€somehow€deficient€in€not€eliciting€testimony€regardingÐ Œ, Ðspecific€acts€of€€violence€committed€by€the€victim,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstratedÐ Xø Ðhow€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€deficiency.€€Indeed,€the€state€introduced€the€petitionerððsÐ $Ä Ðvideotaped€statement€to€law€enforcement€authorities€wherein€the€petitioner€told€theÐ ð Ðinvestigating€officer€of€his€knowledge€of€two€instances€where€the€victim€assaulted€thirdÐ ¼ \ Ðpersons.€€These€are€the€instances€of€which€the€petitioner€now€complains€he€was€notÐ ˆ"( Ðallowed€to€testify.€€The€jury,€thus,€was€able€to€hear€that€the€petitioner€feared€the€victimÐ T$ô Ðas€a€result€of€these€prior€violent€acts.€€Thus,€there€does€not€appear€to€be€any€reasonÐ  &À  Ðto€believe€the€juryððs€verdict€might€have€been€different€had€the€petitioner€been€allowedÐ ì'Œ" Ðto€testify€at€trial€regarding€these€incidents.Ð ¸)X $ Ðà Œ àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€counsel€was€ineffective€on€appeal€for€failingÐ „+$"& Ðto€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€other€defense€witnesses€could€not€testify€as€to€priorÐ P-ð#( Ðviolent€acts€committed€by€the€victim.€€Once€again,€the€petitioner€has€not€establishedÐ /¼%* Ðprejudice.€€Numerous€times€during€the€trial,€witnesses€testified€as€to€the€victimððs€priorÐ `  Ðconvictions,€prior€violent€acts€and€general€reputation€for€violence€in€the€community.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р, Ì ÐTherefore,€even€had€counsel€appealed€this€issue,€it€is€clear€that€any€error€would€haveÐ ø ˜ Ðbeen€deemed€harmless.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€a€reasonableÐ Äd Ðprobability€that€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different,€the€petitionerÐ 0 Ðhas€not€established€how€he€was€prejudiced.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.Ð \ü  Ðat€2068.Ð (È  Ðà Œ àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€showing€that€more€extensiveÐ ô”  Ðquestioning€regarding€the€victimððs€prior€acts€of€violence€would€probably€have€changedÐ À` Ðthe€result€of€the€trial.€€€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Œ, Ðà@‘‘%Úàò òD.€€ð ðExpertðð€Testimonyó óˆÐ Xø Ðà Œ àIn€his€next€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€contendsÐ $Ä Ðthat€his€attorney€failed€to€object€to€Officer€Read€Majorsðð€testimony.€€He€argues€thatÐ ð ÐOfficer€Majors€testified€as€an€expert,€but€the€state€never€qualified€him€as€an€expert.€€AsÐ ¼ \ Ða€result,€he€alleges€that€trial€counsel€should€have€objected€to€Officer€Majorsðð€testimonyÐ ˆ"( Ðand/or€taken€appropriate€measures€to€correct€the€detrimental€effects€of€such€testimony.Ð T$ô Ðà Œ àOfficer€Majors€of€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department€was€called€to€testify€as€aÐ  &À  Ðwitness€for€the€state.€€Majors€was€the€firearms€instructor€for€the€Metro€PoliceÐ ì'Œ" ÐDepartment€and€was€asked€to€perform€tests€on€the€shotgun€which€the€petitioner€usedÐ ¸)X $ Ðto€shoot€Dewey€Slanton.€€Majors€shot€the€weapon€at€a€paper€silhouette€with€both€anÐ „+$"& Ðopen€and€a€closed€choke€at€various€distances€to€demonstrate€the€shot€spread€patternsÐ P-ð#( Ðfrom€different€distances.€€The€state€was€allowed€to€introduce€the€silhouettes€as€exhibits,Ð /¼%* Ðwhile€Majors€testified€as€to€whether€the€choke€was€open€or€closed€and€the€approximateÐ `  Ðdistance€from€which€the€shot€was€fired.Ð , Ì Ðà Œ àIf€a€witness€possesses€scientific,€technical,€or€specialized€knowledge,€he€or€sheÐ ø ˜ Ðmay€qualify€as€an€expert€and€opinion€testimony€may€be€proper.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€Ð Äd ÐA€necessary€prerequisite€to€such€testimony€is€the€qualification€of€the€witness€as€anÐ 0 Ðexpert.€€òòBryant€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€816,€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€In€this€case,Ð \ü  Ðhowever,€Officer€Majors€did€not€give€expert€testimony.€€He€merely€explained€the€testsÐ (È  Ðhe€conducted€to€the€jury,€and€when€the€exhibits€were€passed€to€the€jury,€he€informedÐ ô”  Ðthem€regarding€the€approximate€distance€from€which€the€shot€was€fired.€€The€trial€courtÐ À` Ðdid€not€allow€Officer€Majors€to€state€any€opinion€or€draw€any€conclusions€with€regardÐ Œ, Ðto€such€testing.€€Thus,€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€OfficerÐ Xø ÐMajorsðð€lack€of€qualifications.€€Furthermore,€contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€assertion,Ð $Ä ÐDuzane€objected€to€Officer€Majorsðð€testimony€on€numerous€occasions€on€severalÐ ð Ðdifferent€grounds.€€The€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€that€trial€counsel€was€deficientÐ ¼ \ Ðin€this€respect,€nor€that€he€suffered€prejudice€as€a€result.Ð ˆ"( Ðà Œ àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð T$ô Ðà@ÂÂÚàò òE.€€Petitionerððs€Prior€Convictionsó óˆÐ  &À  Ðà Œ àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€when€he€questionedÐ ì'Œ" Ðthe€petitioner€regarding€his€prior€convictions.€€Prior€to€the€petitioner€testifying,€the€trialÐ ¸)X $ Ðcourt€held€a€jury€out€hearing€to€determine€whether€the€state€could€impeach€theÐ „+$"& Ðpetitioner€with€a€prior€conviction€for€aggravated€assault€with€the€intent€to€commit€aÐ P-ð#( Ðrobbery.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€state€could€question€the€petitioner€with€regard€toÐ /¼%* Ðsuch€conviction.€€On€direct€examination,€the€following€exchange€occurred:Ð è0ˆ', ÐÓÓà Œ àQ.à8 ä àà < àWere€you€convicted€of€a€felony€of€aggravatedÐ ´2T). Ðassault€with€intent€to€commit€robbery,€back€in€1980?К3:*/ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà Œ àA.à8 ä àà < àYes,€sir.€€I€was.Ðf5,1ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà Œ àQ.à8 ä àà < àAnd€is€this€the€second€time€youððve€been€in€trouble?Ð27Ò-3ä Ð ä Ð  Ðâ âÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àA.à8 ä àà < àYes,€sir.€€I€have.€€This€is€the€only€time,€other€thanÐ `  Ðâ âthat€one€time.ÐF æä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓà Œ àOn€cross„examination,€the€prosecutor€then€questioned€the€petitioner€regardingÐ  ² Ðhis€prior€arrests€for€assault,€malicious€destruction€of€property,€assault€and€battery,€andÐ Þ ~ Ðassault€with€an€automobile.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€had€ð ðopened€theÐ ªJ Ðdoorðð€to€such€questioning.Ð v  Ðà Œ àThe€petitioner€complains€that€trial€counselððs€questioning€opened€the€door€to€theÐ Bâ  Ðprosecutorððs€questioning€regarding€the€petitionerððs€prior€arrests.€€He€claims€that€theÐ ®  Ðð ðintense€questioning€obviously€flustered€[him]€and€destroyed€his€credibility€in€the€eyesÐ Úz  Ðof€the€jury.ðð€€However,€it€was€the€petitionerððs€false€answer€to€the€question€whichÐ ¦F Ðð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€his€prior€arrests.€€In€taking€the€stand€in€his€own€defense,€theÐ r Ðpetitioner€was€sworn€to€tell€the€truth,€regardless€of€the€questions€posed€to€him.€€WeÐ >Þ Ðrefuse€to€find€trial€counsel€deficient€as€a€result€of€his€clientððs€decision€to€testifyÐ  ª Ðuntruthfully.€€The€petitioner€has€not€established€that€trial€counselððs€performance€wasÐ Öv Ðdeficient€in€this€regard,€nor€has€he€established€that€he€suffered€prejudice€as€a€result.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¢!B Ðà Œ àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð n# Ðà@^^#Úàò òF.€€Failure€to€Investigateó óˆÐ :%Ú Ðà Œ àIn€his€final€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€alleges€thatÐ '¦! Ðtrial€counsel€did€not€conduct€an€adequate€investigation€of€his€case.€€He€argues€that€trialÐ Ò(r# Ðcounsel€did€not€adequately€investigate€the€crime€scene€and€counsel€should€have€hiredÐ ž*>!% Ða€private€investigator.€€He€further€claims€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€secure€favorableÐ j, #' Ðwitnesses€for€the€defense.Ð 6.Ö$) Ðà Œ àWith€regard€to€the€claim€that€trial€counsel€did€not€properly€investigate€theÐ 0¢&+ Ðâ âpetitionerððs€case,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€what€evidence€furtherÐ Î1n(- Ðinvestigation€would€have€produced.€€As€a€result,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€how€heÐ `  Ðwas€prejudiced€by€his€attorneyððs€alleged€deficiency.Ð , Ì Ðâ âà Œ àThe€petitioner€further€complains€that€trial€counsel€did€not€contact€witnesses€whoÐ ø ˜ Ðwould€have€testified€as€to€the€victimððs€drunken€state€on€the€afternoon€of€the€shooting.€Ð Äd ÐHowever,€these€witnesses€were€not€called€to€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€Ð 0 Ðð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€presentÐ \ü  Ðwitnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€theÐ (È  Ðpetitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ô”  ÐApp.€1990).€€Without€the€testimony€of€these€proposed€witnesses,€this€Court€is€left€toÐ À` Ðspeculate€as€to€what€their€testimony€would€have€been.€€Because€the€petitioner€did€notÐ Œ, Ðpresent€these€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€he€cannot€demonstrate€how€heÐ Xø Ðwas€prejudiced€by€his€attorneyððs€failure€to€discover€these€witnesses€and/or€call€them€toÐ $Ä Ðtestify.Ð ð Ðà Œ àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà@jj.Úàò òIII.ó óˆÐ T$ô ÐÌà Œ àThe€petitioner€has€not€established€that€his€attorney€provided€deficientÐ ì'Œ" Ðperformance€at€trial€or€on€appeal.€€Moreover,€he€has€not€demonstrated€a€reasonableÐ ¸)X $ Ðprobability€that,€due€to€his€attorneyððs€alleged€deficiencies,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ „+$"& Ðwould€have€been€different.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€petition€forÐ P-ð#( Ðpost„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð /¼%* ÐÓ  ÓÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à____________________________________Ð ´2T). Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ š3:*/ ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð 27Ò-3 ÐÌÐ þ8ž/5 Ї___________________________________Ð `  ÐDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÐ F æ ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð ø ˜ ÐNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÔ#†Š ™ˆXX“Þd#Ô